Law School Discussion

airbags LR

airbags LR
« on: September 11, 2004, 07:04:30 PM »
In a car accident, air bags greatly reduce the risk of serious injury.  However, statistics show that cars without air bags are less likely to be involved in accidents than are cars with air bags.  Thus, cars with air bags are no safer than cars without air bags.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) assumes, without providing justification, that any car with air bags will probably become involved in an accident
(B) denies the possibility that cars without air bags have other safety features that reduce the risk of serious injury at least as much as do air bags
(C) overlooks the possibility that some accidents involve both cars with air bags and cars without air bags
(D) assumes, without providing justification, that the likelihood of an accident's occurring should weigh at least as heavily as the seriousness of any resulting injury in estimates of relative safety
(E) takes for granted that all accidents would cause air bags to be deployed




Can someone please explain why the answer is D, as opposed to B? 

foxnewssucks

Re: airbags LR
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2004, 07:13:29 PM »
It is D because just because a certain type of car has more accidents does not make it more dangerous, since danger needs to take into account the chance of serious injury.  Air bags reduce risk of injury = safer.


B - It does not deny anything.

robbief

  • ****
  • 207
  • Right?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: airbags LR
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2004, 07:13:38 PM »
The argument goes something like this -- number of accidents lower, so no airbags are at least as safe.  But who is to say that safety is guided by number of accidents only?  That why D is correct.


qtip2012

  • ****
  • 382
  • LSAT: 162 UGPA: 3.06
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: airbags LR
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2004, 10:05:09 PM »
I believe the word "deny" is really what makes B a wrong answer choice.  If it said, "ignores" this answer might work. 

Also, this is an answer that Kaplans would catagorize as being "out of scope".

Just my two cents.